Opinion
2013-02-13
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Shakim BORGES, appellant.
Matthew Muraskin, Port Jefferson, N.Y., for appellant. Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Thomas Constant of counsel), for respondent.
Matthew Muraskin, Port Jefferson, N.Y., for appellant. Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Thomas Constant of counsel), for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., PETER B. SKELOS, JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, and CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, JJ.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (J. Doyle, J.), rendered April 5, 2011, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that his plea was not knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily entered because the County Court failed to advise him at the time of the plea that his sentence would include a period of postrelease supervision. Contrary to the People's contention, a claim that a plea of guilty was not knowingly or voluntarily entered survives even a valid waiver of the right to appeal ( see People v. Seaberg, 74 N.Y.2d 1, 10, 543 N.Y.S.2d 968, 541 N.E.2d 1022;People v. Tuffini, 101 A.D.3d 1053, 955 N.Y.S.2d 523). Nevertheless, the defendant's contention is unpreserved for appellate review because the defendant was made aware of the postrelease supervision component of his sentence at the outset of the sentencing proceeding, and nonetheless failed to move to withdraw his plea prior to the imposition of sentence ( see People v. Murray, 15 N.Y.3d 725, 906 N.Y.S.2d 521, 932 N.E.2d 877;cf. People v. McAlpin, 17 N.Y.3d 936, 938, 936 N.Y.S.2d 666, 960 N.E.2d 435;People v. Louree, 8 N.Y.3d 541, 545–546, 838 N.Y.S.2d 18, 869 N.E.2d 18). We decline to reach the issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.